W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Editors: Going with hg or sticking with CVS?

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:27:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvZr1GVm3autnVzgxo5-1Ku7pcBivghZLZ=ocOBpTDHkHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> So I checked in with Systems Team over
> cvs.w3.org:/w3ccvs
> being available or mirrored magically with:
> dev.w3.org:/sources/public
> as currently, looking at dev.w3.org, there's no "2012" branch :)
> They responded that dev.w3.org and cvs.w3.org are deliberately separate
> repositories with different access rights and different services so should
> not be mixed as only cvs.w3.org:/w3ccvs reflects on www.w3.org mirrors while
> dev.w3.org:/sources/public has publicly visible cvsweb and anonymous public
> cvs pserver.
> Another option is we have a HG (mercurial) repo
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcrypt
> That we could reset to make "webcrypto" and then move over Editors Drafts of
> both the existing API and a "new" use-case document over there.
> Editors - any opinion?
> Also, a plus of dev.w3.org/dvcs.w3.org is the public nature of the repos.
> Arun thought that the more public, the better, and I tend to agree.
>    cheers,
>        harry

HG. All the way. I have previously expressed support for this on calls.

If anything, simply being able to diff between revisions is worth
whatever reposistory-switch overhead. I'm a big fan of small commits
with easily referenced URLs, which the current CVS system does not
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 17:27:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 October 2012 17:27:41 GMT